Terrorism = Islam? Sadly Seems So

Nothing is impossible. But I do not think killing millions of Americans is probable.

You and I have very very different opinions about the threat that WMDs pose. You rate them as a far higher threat than do I and estimate the casusalties at a rate I consider apocalyptic.

WMDs have been used, and have been used by militaries that have had optimal conditions for building them.

They have been used in situations with no restraining authority.

And they have never killed millions in an attack.

While possible, I think WMD attacks by terrorists would likely be on a scale more similar to 9/11.

But this is a dead-end "what if" difference and the only way to find out who's right isn't too attractive.

"Identify and go kill them" is ludicrous. This plays right into the hands of those who want to wage holy war on Muslims; and, it plays right into the hands of Terrorist recruiters. So long as the United States is seen as supporting a Jewish attempt at genocide against the Palestinian Muslims, so long as we are seen as supporting repressive regimes such as that of Mubarik in Egypt, those recruiters will have no problem find willing suicide bombers. But every society has such a lunatic fringe. We have people like Ted Koszinski or Eric Rudolph, but they remain a fringe because, basically, everyone in the country has it good, or at least has a sufficiency. But if you live in a slum in Cairo, or in the Gaza strip, and it seems that the U.S. props up regimes that kill your people, how much easier for an otherwise reasonable individual to be lead by desparation to an insane act. People set off bombs in public places in Israel because Israeli "defense" forces, flying American aircraft, using American missles and subsidized by the U.S., attacked crowded slums. You can argue endlessly about who did what to whom first, but the plain truth is that we have never put any pressure on Israel to make an accomdation, and we continue to provide them financial and military aid.

Take away the causus belli and give the Muslim world time for the upheavals which will lead to something like social and economic justice for the populations, and the terrorists there will dwindle into the insignificant fringe that they represent among western populations. Go over there with an "identify and kill them first" attitude, and you just stoke the fires. This truly is a witless stand to take, and just reinforces extremist propaganda about new christian crusades. Go buy a vowell.

Aluminum was expensive because, although the commonest metal on earth, it is rarely found concentrated, and when it is, as bauxite, it was extremely expensive to smelt. A college boy in Ohio, working in a backyard lab, determined that it could be done with lots of high-voltage electricity, and when Tezla's asynchronous bi-phase generators were installed at a new power plant at Niagara Falls, the Ohio boy went to Buffalo and made a fortune, and made aluminum affordable.

Which means that there are solutions to all types of problems when enough people find them, and the solutions are not usually obvious. Going over there to "identify and kill" the enemy is a simple-minded recipe for disaster. If small nukes become feasible for fringe groups in five, ten or fifteen years, you're in as much danger from the Eric Rudolphs of this world as you are from Osama, and the Eric Rudolphs of this world live across the street from you.

So you just go over there and kill 'em all, huh? And let "God" sort 'em out? Like i said--it's witless. How do you id the jokers? Look, Chuck, there goes some a them terrorists now, them towel-heads over there, shoot 'em, shoot 'em ! ! ! . This sort of drivel is simplistic, and, as i've said more than once now, a recipe for disaster. Of course, it has a great appeal for those who don't want to do anything difficult, such as determine and eliminate the origins of the hatred expressed toward us.

And, as i've pointed out, you can count on home-grown nut cases to be just as dangerous if they get WoMD's. I'm glad you're living in fantasy land, because if you were a decision maker in the real world, we'd be up the famous fecal creek, and no paddle in sight.

Rabid, "amoral" (god, you fracture me!) enemies of anyone or anything are likely users of whatever means are available to them to kill those they percieve as the enemy. Which includes idiotic appeals to cultural or moral superiority over members of an alien religion.

Chuck, Chuck ! ! ! Look, millions a them towel-heads, git me a tactical nuke ! ! !

How about we let Lusatian make his own arguement?

In principle, one could determine which groups are responsible for the most acts of terrorism by simply tabulating a lot of high profile terrorist events and who they were committed by. Presumably, if you had groups A, B, and C, you might end up with

A: 12 acts
B: 15 acts
C: 11 acts

Perhaps if this were done, some group would be disproportionately represented. Perhaps not. However, I recommend that you define your terms first. Here is what I think you should resolve prior to such a count:

1. Only count events within the past 30 years. After all, the idea is to see if any group is responsible for more than its share, not if any group used to be.
2. Terrorism is defined as the deliberate targetting of civilians, as opposed to soldiers, or high ranking members of a government. Aiming at soldiers, and trying to minimize civilian casualties, but inadvertantly getting them sometimes does not count.
3. Only surprise attacks in which the perpetrator suddenly assumes control should be counted. If you talk about abusing prisoners, that seems to me to be more like oppression than terrorism.

Now, since the people doing the counting determine which terrorist events get counted, they could always be charged with using this power to manipulate the outcome, but if they really did attempt to be fair, one might reach a useful conclusion. Then you would have some idea as to whether certain groups were overrepresented in the ranks of terrorists.

Take you prejudical, ignorant rants and shove them!

People, people, how hard is it calling a spade a spade. I'll freely grant that there are occasional (emphasize "occasional") terrorist acts aimed at the civilian populations of Western cultures perpetrated by non-Islamic groups (i.e. Oklahoma, Sarin gas in Tokyo), but these were one attack per group each.

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Take you prejudical, ignorant rants and shove them!

No such word (in English) as "prejudical". Though the rest of your sentence is grammatical gold. I will cease all "ignorrince" immediately.

Prejudicial Language

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral
goodness to believing the proposition.

Examples:
(i) Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we
should have another free vote on capital punishment.
(ii) A reasonable person would agree that our income
statement is too low.
(iii) Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce
the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what
Turner says is false.)
(iv) The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats
on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely
to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)

Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking
Canadians" or "A reasonable person"). Show that disagreeing
with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking"
or "unreasonable".

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 153; Davis: 62

No such word (in English) as "prejudical". Though the rest of your sentence is grammatical gold. I will cease all "ignorrince" immediately.

prejudical

\Pre*ju"di*cal\, a. Of or pertaining to the determination of some matter not previously decided; as, a prejudical inquiry or action at law.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc